Kiran Raj

A recent judgement from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has upheld the validity of a unilateral deemed conveyance order granted in favor of a housing society. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the builder and developers, contesting the order issued by the Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management, and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA Act). The court ruled stated that  any disputes concerning land title and subdivision must be addressed in civil proceedings rather than through writ jurisdiction.

The dispute arose from an application for deemed conveyance filed by Shri Panchamrut CHS Ltd. (Respondent No.1) concerning land situated at Survey No. 329, 330, Hissa No. 1, CTS Nos. 1478, 1482, at N. L. Compound, Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. The petitioners, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Rajesh Himatlal, and Wonder Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., were initially responsible for the development of the property and had executed agreements for sale with individual flat purchasers under Section 4 of the MOFA Act.

The petitioners challenged the Competent Authority’s order granting deemed conveyance to the society, arguing that the order transferred more land than agreed upon in the sale agreements. Specifically, they contended that only 2996 square meters of land should have been conveyed, whereas the impugned order conveyed 4925.62 square meters, including an undivided interest in the Recreational Ground (RG) area measuring 869.23 square meters.

The petitioners submitted that they had already prepared a draft conveyance for the specified portion of the land, but the society refused to accept it. They also argued that the unilateral deemed conveyance included a 9-meter-wide access road, which was not meant to be part of the society’s property. Additionally, they claimed that the society’s application lacked procedural compliance, as it was not presented in the prescribed form and lacked necessary notarization.

The society, in response, contended that the developers had failed to execute the conveyance deed despite the statutory mandate. The society relied on sanctioned plans, agreements with flat purchasers, and documentary evidence to assert that they were entitled to the entire land, as granted by the Competent Authority. It further maintained that any objections related to access roads and subdivisions were beyond the scope of deemed conveyance proceedings and should be settled in a separate civil suit.

Further, the society cited the Occupation Certificate issued on December 24, 2004, stating that despite two decades of possession and payments, the developers had delayed the transfer, thereby necessitating their application for deemed conveyance.

The petitioners also argued that the agreement under Section 4 of the MOFA Act specified certain exclusions, including land earmarked for public amenities. They claimed that the society had exceeded the boundaries prescribed in the original layout by seeking conveyance of additional land. The court was also presented with correspondence and resolutions from the society's general body meetings, stating the necessity of the conveyance for clear ownership and legal compliance.

The High Court observed that the MOFA Act imposes an obligation on developers to execute conveyance within a prescribed time. The failure to do so entitled societies to seek unilateral deemed conveyance under Section 11. The court reaffirmed that the Competent Authority is vested with jurisdiction to enforce statutory obligations and is not required to adjudicate title disputes.

The judgment stated: “The Competent Authority under Section 11 of the MOFA Act exercises a limited jurisdiction to ensure that the statutory obligation of conveyance is effectuated. It does not possess the authority to adjudicate on complex title disputes or proprietary rights which remain within the domain of civil courts.”

The court further observed that discrepancies in CTS numbers or survey details cannot invalidate deemed conveyance when the boundaries of the land match the agreements executed between the parties. The court recorded: “Where there exists an inconsistency between the boundary description and survey numbers, the boundary references must take precedence, as they offer a definitive and ascertainable identification of the land in question.”

On the petitioners’ contention that the Competent Authority had conveyed excess land, the court stated: “If the petitioners contend that the area conveyed under the deemed conveyance exceeds the scope of agreements executed with flat purchasers, their remedy lies in a civil suit rather than in a collateral challenge under Article 226.”

Regarding the 9-meter-wide access road, the court ruled that easementary rights and road access issues must be resolved in a civil forum, stating: “The Competent Authority does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate easementary disputes, and such claims must be raised in a civil suit seeking a declaration of rights.”

The court also cited Mazda Construction Company v. Sultanabad Darshan CHS Ltd. (2012), which upheld the principle that deemed conveyance proceedings are limited to statutory enforcement and do not create new rights beyond the agreements executed under MOFA.

After reviewing the statutory framework, submissions, and precedents, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The judgment explicitly stated: “The writ petition stands dismissed as no case for interference with the impugned order is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioners are granted liberty to pursue their civil remedies, if any, in respect of the disputed rights.”

The court further observed that any disputes regarding subdivision, access roads, or land reservations must be pursued separately through civil litigation, without affecting the deemed conveyance granted to the society.

Case Title: Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Shri Panchamrut CHS Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2222 of 2025
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar

[Read/Download order]